This potentially gives an opportunity for MSPs to ban dual mandates, disqualifing MSPs from holding seats in Westminster at while representating constituents at Holyrood.
Graham Simpson MSP retabled his amendment to do this after the furore over Stephen Flynn MP planning on holding a dual mandate until 2029 if elected to Holyrood in 2026. So far, his amendments (one relating to the Commons and one the Lords) are the only ones that have been tabled, with the deadline on Tuesday 10 December for further amendments.
MSPs deserve to debate these proposals and should ultimately vote to ban dual mandates once and for all.
When an MP holds another elected role, such as MSP, they are said to hold a dual mandate. As with second jobs more generally, this is problematic as constituents deserve full-time representatives. Not part-timers.
The issue has been in the spotlight again with SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn planning to hold a dual mandate if selected to run for the Scottish Parliament in 2026 and ultimately become an MSP – until rescinding his bid on Thursday evening.
Momentum is building against dual mandates in Scotland but other parts of the UK already have dual mandate bans in place.
What are the rules on dual mandate bans in Northern Ireland?
The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 legislated to explicitly prevent members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLAs) from also being MPs. It also bans MLAs from being members of the Dáil Éireann (TDs) in the Republic of Ireland.
The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 takes this ban further, outlining that councillors cannot be MPs, MLAs, peers of members of any other legislative body.
The newly formed Modernisation Committee in the House of Commons should consider recommending banning MSP-MP dual mandates as part of its remit concerning MPs’ outside employment.
Labour formed the government on the back of a manifesto pledge to clamp down on paid advisory and consultancy roles. However, the new committee has an opportunity to take those proposals further and tighten restrictions on second jobs more broadly.
Dual mandates, where an individual holds two full-time parliamentary positions at the same time, are bad for representative democracies. This includes MSP-MPs and MSPs-Lords. The phenomenon results in representatives not fully dedicated to their constituents in one clear capacity.
A ban on the practice is long overdue, with the most prominent example in recent years being Douglas Ross being an MP, and MSP and taking on further employment at the same time. That said, this is an issue something all main parties have been of guilty of, especially in the early days of the Scottish Parliament.
The Modernisation Committee should consider the issue as part of their remit.
“Labour will establish a new Modernisation Committee tasked with reforming House of Commons procedures, driving up standards, and improving working practices. The absence of rules on second jobs also means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step,Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country.”
Next year marks 25 years since the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament. In that time we’ve had six first ministers, six elections and a seismic shift in voting patterns best illustrated by the once dominant Labour now in third place and a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.
With a quarter of a century of devolution fast approaching, a full review of Scotland’s democratic apparatus is surely needed. Democracy is a process not an event; likewise our democratic institutions need to evolve and keep up with democratic best practice.
1. Better Proportional Representation
When it comes to the link between how people vote at the ballot box and how seats are distributed in the legislature, the Scottish Parliament is significantly fairer than the House of Commons (let alone the unelected House of Lords). The introduction of the Additional Member System (AMS) to elect MSPs from the outset, rather than the unrepresentative First Past the Post (FPTP) system, has ensured diverse representative parliaments where seats won broadly reflect votes cast.
That said, the benefits of AMS should not be overstated. The system has a number of flaws which should be addressed and remedied. Holyrood needs electoral reform as well as Westminster.
AMS is only partially proportional. A majority of seats are elected via FPTP and the proportional list seats are allocated on a regional basis leading to only regional proportionality and a risk of overhangs with no mechanism to correct them. Furthermore, the FPTP constituencies as an integral (and majority) part of AMS result in safe seats, retain a major drawback of FPTP.
There’s also the two-vote problem – having two types of votes can lead to divergence between constituency and list votes cast, messing with the ended outcome of proportionality. As part of that, the system can be gamed: although unsuccessful, in 2021 Alba tried to game the list vote to create a supermajority for independence, going against the spirit of a system designed to represent as many views as possible – as accurately as possible. This is compounded by the fact that there are two types of MSP, constituency and list, which while in theory have the same roles in practice can be rather different.
AMS is superior to FPTP but its flaws demonstrate the need to reform. The Scottish Parliament needs a system like the Single Transferable Vote to empower voters, deliver better proportionality and end the two vote/MSP problem.
Dual mandates occur when an individual holds elected office for two positions. In the Scottish context, this can be any combination of MP, MSP, Councillor or Peer. Scotland needs fair and accountable representation, through dedicated parliamentarians. We need to end dual mandates.
The main argument against dual mandates is one of two connected parts. In principle, parliamentarians are elected to serve their constituents at either Holyrood or Westminster. Each role has different responsibilities, and representatives owe it to their constituents to solely focus on representing constituents in one clear capacity. Dual mandates mean this cannot happen.
Related to that is the practical element. Being an MP or MSP is a full-time job and carrying out the duties of both roles to the same extent as a representative for one job is simply impossible. Constituents deserve better than that.
The only current MSP to hold a dual mandate is Scottish Conservative Leader Douglas Ross. That said, it’s worth flagging that while Labour MSP Katy Clark is also a member of the House of Lords she has stepped down active duty in that role while in the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, until the 2022 Scottish council elections, 18 newly elected MSPs also held dual mandates from their roles as councillors they won before the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections.
In a similar spirit to the above reform, the Scottish Parliament needs to restrict MSPs from having second jobs. The problem is a big one at Westminster, with MPs in safe seats taking advantage of that job security and focusing time and energy into other pursuits. While not as a significant issue in the Scottish Parliament, there are no restrictions on MSPs taking additional employment. Constituents deserve 100% focus on them – MSPs having second jobs just doesn’t cut it.
There is of course a debate over to what exact reach any restrictions on second jobs should have. Clearly any jobs even relating to public affairs and lobby should be to prevent any conflicting motivations. Full-time jobs should also definitely face a ban. While at the other end of the scale there’s a case to doctors and similar professionals to work limited hours in that capacity to retain licenses.
There is of course a middle ground between those two ends and while it’ll be up to policy-makers to decide where the line is drawn, anything that takes up a significant portion of an MSPs time should be banned.
The Scottish Parliament was founded with fixed-term four-year parliamentary terms as shown by the 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011 elections. Regular fixed elections ensure frequent accountability and democratic input from the voters. Westminster’s fixed-term parliament Act wasn’t perfect but it ensured a level playing field in normal times – all parties knew when the election was scheduled for. The reality was of course quite different due to Brexit and political upheaval but the principle is solid and is borne out in practice in much of the democratic world. In different times, the benefits would have been realised. The current uncertainty as to when the next Westminster election will take place is frustrating and places an obvious advantage in the hands of the incumbent prime minister.
With the principle of fixed elections established, it then follows how frequent these should be?
There is no right answer but the move to five-year Holyrood terms means just two elections a decade, less accountability and “zombie parliaments” at the end of a parliamentary term.
Two year parliaments, as seen in the USA with the House of Representatives, face the opposite problem: too much accountability leading to constant electioneering and voter fatigue. New Zealand and Australia have three year parliaments, which are popular over there but would be a radical shift in the UK and perhaps lead to the same voter fatigue seen during the Brexit crisis.
There is however, a happy middle that would ensure a fair balance between accountability and effective government. Four year terms would enable that – and it’s time for Holyrood to return to its roots.
During the last parliamentary session a disgraced former minister was able to claim his salary and expenses while not even turning up to the Scottish Parliament to represent his constituents. The minister brought the parliament into disrepute but there was no mechanism to remove him as an MSP.
Holyrood should learn from Westminster and introduce a recall rule to address this democratic deficit. A recall petition – that can lead to a by-election – is triggered if an MP receives a custodial prison sentence, is suspended from the House or is convicted of providing false or misleading expenses claims. A similar mechanism should be adopted at Holyrood, ideally as part of a new, fairer voting system, and built upon to include MSPs who don’t turn up and other actions that don’t live up to what is expected of MSPs.
The Westminster system is designed for FPTP so modifications would be required for AMS at Holyrood, especially the list element or any future better alternative. That said, whatever voting system is used it’s clear that there should be a mechanism to remove lawbreaking and absent MSPs. Anything less is an insult to democratic accountability.
The idea of more politicians will be off-putting for many but a moderate increase in the size of the Scottish Parliament would be a proportionate response to the increased powers held by the chamber. Furthermore, with around a fifth of MSPs on the government payroll (as ministers and junior ministers) an increase in members will improve overall accountability and scrutiny. MSPs also often sit on multiple committees in addition to party spokesperson roles and their work as constituency MSPs, a point recently made in the Herald.
Scottish representatives need the space to become experts in different areas. Freeing up time to limit multi-tasking would result in just that, further improving scrutiny.
An increase in MSPs would also allow greater flexibility when designing a new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. Sticking to 129 would place limitations on the exact make-up of any new election system.
7. Better ballot access
Better ballot access isn’t something that Upgrade Holyrood has directly advocated before but it’s a reform that’s well worth considering as part of a wider package of upgrading Scottish democracy. To stand for election at either Holyrood or Westminster, one must pay a deposit of £500, only returnable upon winning 5% of the vote. This has become such a normalised part of our politics it blurs into the background and is regularly accepted without question.
Yet is should be questioned. Requiring a £500 deposit to stand for election places an immediate barrier on potential candidates. Of course there should be a barrier to minimise non-serious candidates to only the most persistent but the nature of the £500 is a financial barrier which has obvious consequences for accessibility and equality.
Championed by Ballot Box Scotland, one alternative would be combination of entitlements and subscriptions, which are used in other democracies. Parties and/or candidates who win seats in the most recent elections would be entitled to automatically stand again if they wish. However, new parties or independent candidates would be required to gather signatures of say 0.1% of the electorate to demonstrate a level of support. This would result in a system with no financial barriers, only the barrier of proving that a party or candidate has a small but provable level of support and reduce frivolous candidates.
BONUS – Further powers for local councils and local democracy reforms
This isn’t strictly a reform of the Scottish Parliament, but to wider Scottish democracy. Decisions should be made as close to the people as possible at the level of governance most appropriate as possible. While the Scottish Parliament has gained powers since its formation, local councils have only seen some moderate increases in powers while power in Scotland has been increasingly centralised at Holyrood. Local councils surely deserve more of a say in how local areas are run.
Another set of local elections in England has left a bad taste in the mouths of better democracy campaigners. Yet this time is slightly different. This time – instead of the same old story of unrepresentative councils across the country – we have taken a significant step backwards when it comes to local democracy.
We can debate the merits of directly elected executive mayors another time but if we are to have them – which England does – they should have broad mandates. Until the Elections Act (2022), these mayors were elected via the Supplementary Vote (SV) system.
The SV system isn’t perfect but it gave mayors broad mandates, a crucial check on directly elected executive positions. Instead of making positive reforms, the Conservatives’ regressive Elections Act scrapped this system and imposed First Past the Post on mayoralties across England.
The situation will be far worse in 2024 when metro mayors and Police and Crime Commissioner elections are scheduled. Crucially, 2024 will see the first London mayoral election held under First Past the Post.
Again, the Supplementary Vote wasn’t perfect but it allowed for successful candidates to secure their mandates with broad support. Instead of imposing First Past the Post on mayoralties, the government should have improved the system by implementing the Alternative Vote for mayoral positions. AV would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference and give directly elected executive mayors broad mandates.
Instead, this development comes on top of the usual story of unrepresentative councils thanks to First Past the Post. Right across England councils were elected with seat shares not reflective of vote shares. English local democracy should be upgrade more widely via the introducing of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) for council elections.
The Lib-Lab coalition of 2003 – 2007 did this in north of the border. Scottish local democracy’s success story since 2007 is undeniable. The country no longer has “one-party state” councils and has a vibrant multi-party democracy at the local level where how people vote at the ballot box is reflected in local councils.
Northern Irish local elections take place in two weeks time using STV. These elections will be a welcome contrast to those we saw in England at the start of the month.
A Conservative government at Westminster isn’t going to upgrade English local democracy any time soon. But the next Westminster power arrangement – possibly some combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs – should look to the Scottish and Northern Irish success stories and upgrade England’s local politics. Preferential voting for both mayors and councillors would be a major leap forward. This year’s elections once again show that change is needed.
Next year marks 25 years of devolution following the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. After some bumps along the way, the Scottish Parliament is undeniably a success story. However, while its use of a broadly proportional voting system makes it more representative than the parliament in Westminster (what with FPTP in the Commons and the continued existence of the House of Lords), the Scottish Parliament needs reform. Put simply, Holyrood needs an upgrade.
Upgrade Holyrood champions better democracy in Scotland. With next year marking a quarter of a century of devolution, it will be the perfect time to reflect, assess and improve upon the democratic mechanisms of the Scottish Parliament.
First things first, Scotland’s voting system sounds great at first glance but there is significant room for improvement. The Additional Member System (AMS) ensures broad proportionality but only goes so far as having a mechanism for regional proportionality. What’s more it fails to address overhangs, retains single-member districts and leaves open the possibility for parties to “game the system” as seen with Alba’s failed attempt to win a “supermajority” for independence at the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. Furthermore, voters still have limited powers over individual candidates.
The system is significantly more proportional than First Past the Post but alternatives do exist – and those alternatives must be examined and adopted. There are three likely routes that the Scottish Parliament could take on this issue: AMS with modifications, Open List PR or the Single Transferable Vote.
Tinkering around the edges by adopting a German style mixed-member voting system to address overhangs and ensure national party proportionality would be a minor improvement but it would cause some headaches of it’s own – Germany’s Bundestag is growing with each election. The Scottish public are likely to be approving of significantly more politicians. What’s more such a system would retain single-member constituencies.
Open List PR with levelling seats – as in Denmark, Sweden or Iceland – this would improve proportionality, give voters power over individual candidates and crucially end single-member districts. This would be one option for the Scottish Parliament that’s worth considering. If we were to go down this route then we would to ensure that any lists are regional, open for voters to enhance their power and have levelling seats to ensure both regional and national proportional representation.
The final alternative is often seen as the gold-standard voting system (if implemented properly) – the Single Transferable Vote. Already used to elect councillors in Scotland, STV would provide proportionality (depending on district sizes), give voters an enormous amount of power at elections and provide voters with multi-party representation. What’s more, the system is backed by the SNP, Lib Dems, as well as some Labour and Conservative MSPs. The Scottish Greens recently supported it before backing Open List PR.
The Scottish Parliament must therefore examine its voting system in any 25-year review of devolution.
But it’s not just the electoral system where the Scottish Parliament needs improvements.
Holyrood needs to end dual mandates – primarily for joint MSP-MPs and MSP-Lords but also place restrictions on MSP-councillors. Dual mandates are unfair on voters who deserve fully-committed representatives. On top of that, there also needs to be a restriction on second jobs for MSPs, again for similar reasons.
We also need a return to four-year parliamentary terms. It’s right that election terms are fixed – as they give a level playing field to all parties and candidates – but five-year terms are too long and are only something the Scottish Parliament slipped into during the last decade as a result of Westminster’s very brief adoption of fixed five-year terms.
What’s more, the Scottish Parliament also needs a recall rule. Holyrood is ahead of Westminster on many fronts but the lack of ability for constituents to recall MSPs is a major flaw. In practice this will be difficult to achieve due to the mixed-member system and by-election blueprint for recalls at Westminster but any review of the functioning of the Scottish Parliament should include a reform of this nature.
2024 will be a milestone year for Scotland – 25 years of devolution have undoubtedly changed the Scottish political landscape forever.
Devolution works and what’s more it works well. This should be celebrated. But with that success comes room for improvement. There will be time to take stock next year and assess a way to move forward on these reforms – hopefully with cross-party support. It’s time to upgrade Holyrood.
Voters in Quebec went to the polls on 3 October 2022 to elect all 125 Members of the province’s National Assembly. As with Canadian federal elections, as well as votes in the other nine provinces and the three territories, the election was held under First Past the Post, resulting in another outcome where seats didn’t match votes.
State of play before the election
The previous election took place in October 2018 at which the Liberals lost over half their seats, and with it their governing majority. The party lost a staggering 16.7 percentage points. Meanwhile the nationalist, conservative Coalition Avenir Québec gained support across the province, taking a majority of seats (74 out of 125) on just 37.4% of the vote.
The independence supporting Parti Québécois lost votes and seats while the social democratic Québec solidaire gained votes and seats.
The outcome resulted in the Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault becoming premier of the province. Polls since then showed the Coalition consistently in the lead and on course to emerge the largest party in 2022 yet again, however, they have also shown a significant increase in support for the Conservative Party of Quebec who won just 1.5% in 2018.
A missed opportunity for Proportional Representation
It’s worth highlighting here that the Coalition Avenir Québec went into the 2018 election promising to change the province’s voting system to one of Proportional Representation. The government even brought forward a bill to introduce a mixed-member proportional system with 80 members elected via First Past the Post ridings and 45 elected via regional lists.
This proposed system closely reflects Scotland’s current Additional Member System, which has 73 constituency MSPs and 56 regional MSPs, which would result in broadly proportional outcomes. Similar systems are also used in the likes of Wales, Germany and New Zealand.
However, the legislation to enact this change was never passed despite the Coalition Avenir Québec majority. According to CBC, after the election Quebec’s premier changed position to supporting a referendum on reform rather than just implementing a system switch. And since then that referendum proposal was scrapped, with the minister responsible blaming the pandemic for the shifting timetable.
It remains to be seen whether there will be any reforms after the 2022 election.
How did Quebec vote in 2022 and how representative was it?
As widely expected, the governing Coalition Avenir Québec remained the largest party at the 2022 election. The party took 40.96% of the vote , resulting in them winning 90 out of 125 seats. As usual, First Past the Post has rewarded the largest party by inflating their representation in the legislature. CAQ won 72% of seats available on just 4 in 10 votes. The over-representation of CAQ clearly shows how unrepresentative First Past the Post truly is.
On top of that, the results for the four other main parties show just how messed up FPTP can be. The rest of the vote split four ways. Here’s what happened.
The once governing Liberals came in fourth with 14.37% of the vote, however, because of the wild nature of the voting system used, they ended up the second largest party, taking 21 seats (17% of those in the National Assembly).
Québec Solidaire won more votes than the Liberals (15.2%) but only took 11 seats. Parti Québécois did the same (14.6%) but won a mere 3 seats out of 125.
What’s more, the Conservative Party of Quebec won 12.92% of the vote yet failed to win any seats, a result reminiscent of UKIP taking 13% of the vote at the 2015 election and only returning with one seat.
Overall, the results were extremely unrepresentative:
The most popular party won a massive majority on just 41% of the vote.
The fourth most popular party came second in terms of seats.
Four parties came within 3 percentage points of each other, all with wildly different results.
A party that took almost 13% of the vote came away with no seats.
The election did not fully reflect how people voted.
Quebec’s 2022 general election is yet another example of the striking flaws First Past the Post. Four years ago there was a real possibility that 2022 would be the last Quebec election held under FPTP but that feels almost impossible now. This should be a warning to campaigners in the UK if Labour wins a majority with a promise to reform the electoral system. There is a real possibility that such a government would go back on its pledge, like Labour did in 1997, similar to what happened with Canada’s Justin Trudeau in 2015 and most recently in Quebec.
Sweden went to the polls on Sunday 11 September 2022, four years after the previous vote in 2018. The country uses a system of Proportional Representation to elect members of the Riksdag, ensuring that how Swedes vote at the ballot box is reflected in parliament.
The country’s electoral system is worth exploring as an alternative to Holyrood’s broadly proportional but flawed Additional Member System.
What electoral system does Sweden use?
Sweden uses a system of Open List Proportional Representation with levelling seats to ensure national proportionality.
The country is divided into 29 constituencies – ranging from 2 to 43 members (Gotland and Stockholm county respectively) – to which parties present lists of candidates in each constituency. Voters get to vote for one party but also have the option to vote for individual candidates, which can alter the list ordering within their constituency. This is the open element of the system, thus further empowering voters at the ballot box.
Elections in Sweden are extremely proportional due to larger multi-member constituencies, however, what sets the country’s system apart from country’s such as Estonia and Latvia which use list PR systems, is that Sweden’s electoral system also employs levelling seats. Once all the votes are counted and seats distributed as per the voters’ wishes, parties win additional seats across the country to ensure that the overall results are as proportional as possible. Of the 349 seats in the Riksdag, 310 are distributed in the first instance while a further 39 are distributed to further improve proportionality. There is also a 4% national threshold for parties to enter the Riksdag. Sweden is not unique in this regard; Norway, Denmark and Iceland also have levelling seats to ensure proportionality overall.
How did Sweden vote at the 2022 election and how proportional was it?
The previous Swedish general election took place in 2018, which was followed by tough negotiations and even a no confidence vote in Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. However, Löfven emerged to lead a minority left coalition made up of his own party the Social Democrats, as well as the Greens. Löfven resigned in 2021, making way for party colleague Magdalena Andersson, who led her party into the 2022 election.
The most recent election was an incredibly close-run contest between the left and right blocs. On the left, the Social Democrats maintained their dominant position as the largest party in parliament. however, right of centre parties managed to win a very slim majority of seats, leading to Magdalena Andersson’s resignation on Thursday. The far-right Sweden Democrats replaced the centre-right Moderates as the second largest party in parliament but the Moderate leader is likely to become prime minister due to the toxicity of the Sweden Democrats even amongst the rest of the right. What influence they will have this parliament – and in the years to come – remains to be seen.
But how proportional was the 2022 election? Thanks to Sweden’s Open List PR system, the answer is very.
The Social Democrats for example won 107 seats (30.7%) on 30.4% of the vote. The Sweden Democrats took 73 seats (20.9%) on 20.5% of the vote while the Moderates won 68 seats (19.5%) on 19.5% of the vote. Overall, results were extremely proportional with seats reflecting votes. Furthermore, voters were empowered by the open element of the allowing them to express support for individuals within their chosen party.
Swedish Election Result (6,568 out of 6,578 Districts Counted):
Social Democrats: 107 (+3) Sweden Democrats: 73 (+11) Moderate: 68 (-2) Centre: 24 (-7) Left: 24 (-4) Christian Democrats: 19 (-4) Green: 18 (+2) Liberal: 16% (-4)
How do the Swedish and Scottish electoral systems compare?
The Scottish Parliament’s broadly proportional Additional Member System (AMS) is significantly fairer than the unrepresentative First Past the Post voting system used for the House of Commons. However, it has a number of flaws that need to be addressed. Problems associated with Holyrood’s mixed-member system are listed below:
1. Regional not national PR – As list members are distributed on a regional basis only, there is no mechanism to ensure overall nationality proportionality. While regional proportionality tends to result in broadly proportional outcomes overall, there is still room for improvement.
2. Limited voter power – Under AMS voters have no power over the ordering of party lists. Furthermore, the constituency vote element limits voter power by creating safe seats and targeted marginal seats while also being “lists of one”.
3. Two types of MSPs – Due to the nature of mixed-member systems, the Scottish Parliament has two types of MSP. While in theory they perform the same functions, this can vary in practice, particularly on the casework side of things.
4. The two-vote problem – Voters have two votes, and while they should ideally work in tandem to result in proportional outcomes, it creates the opportunities for parties to exploit this by only standing in the list and asking established parties’ supporters to back them on the list. This was highlighted when Alba was established with the express intention to do this in 2021. This clearly goes against the spirit of AMS and could create highly disproportionate elections.
5. Constituency seats remain (and dominate!) – Single-member constituencies still come with many of the flaws they have in FPTP. They result in wasted votes and can lead to safe seats, as well as marginal seats which can result in parties focusing on them rather than giving attention to the wider region or country. Furthermore, the fact that constituency seats make up a significant majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, this can result in overhangs (which aren’t addressed by AMS) and skew overall proportionality – particularly if one party dominates single-member seats.
Upgrade Holyrood is committed to making the case for improving Scotland’s democracy, and that includes arguing for a review of the current system and outlining alternatives. The type of system used for Swedish elections – an Open List PR system with levelling seats – is one option that would address many of the faults of AMS.
Levelling seats would rectify the problem of limited national proportionality. And while there would technically be two types of MSP, under a Swedish model, these are given back to constituencies, minimising that problem to a minimum. Furthermore, voters would only have one party vote, ending the two vote problem, and single-seat constituencies would come to an end. Voters would also be empowered by being able to influence party lists unlike under AMS where parties present unalterable lists.
But what would such a system look like in practice?
Ballot Box Scotland is a strong advocate of Holyrood adopting an Open List PR system (with levelling seats), which they categorise as Scandinavian-style PR. For those wondering what Holyrood would look like if it adopted a system like Sweden, BBS has designed such a model for Scotland and used the most recent Scottish Parliament election results to give an indication of what seat distribution would look like.
This is shown below. Of course, it’s worth noting that the size of any constituencies in such a system if it were to be adopted would be up to the designers so it wouldn’t necessarily reflect the below. Furthermore, in terms of seat projections, the below uses the regional vote to determine how people would cast their singular Open List PR vote. In reality, many who voted ‘SNP constituency and Green regional’ might instead have use their one vote for the SNP although this is all speculation of course. In addition, the type of voting system used very much determines how people vote and so how people may have voted under this system could be completely different (e.g. smaller parties may be more considered).
Final Large Change: Abolish all trace of current model, introduce Scandinavian Style PR! https://t.co/1Vj8klBW7h
SNP ~ 55 (-9) Conservative ~ 32 (+1) Labour ~ 24 (+2) Green ~ 11 (+3) Lib Dem ~ 7 (+3)
— Ballot Box Scotland (@BallotBoxScot) June 3, 2021
So, what support is there for a Swedish-style system among Scottish parties? The Scottish Greens support a Scandinavian-style system while the Lib Dems favour the Single Transferable Vote (which again would be better than AMS if designed effectively), as do the SNP while Labour and the Conservatives are largely missing from this debate (although figures such as Labour’s Paul Sweeney MSP recognise the faults of the current system).
That all said, a Sweden-like system is not the only alternative to the current set-up at Holyrood. Two other alternatives would be the Single Transferable Vote (which would address many of AMS’ problems, ensure proportionality and vastly improve voter choice and power) and a modified mixed-member system with open lists and guaranteed overall proportionality (similar to Bavaria’s electoral system).
Sweden’s election provides just one model that Holyrood – and perhaps Westminster (although that seems far less likely and possibly undesirable for such a large populous) – could adopt to improve electoral outcomes. Reform is needed, and to achieve change it is vital that we look to other parliaments for guidance.
Two out of four of London’s Conservative list Assembly Members support replacing First Past the Post with Proportional Representation.
Emma Best AM declared her support for PR at Westminster in an article for 1828 in November 2021 while Andrew Boff AM has been a long-standing advocate of electoral reform and has now joined Make Votes Matter’s PR Alliance (February 2022). The timing is particularly significant due to the government’s regressive Elections Bill returning to the House of Lords that same week.
The team at Make Votes Matter would like to welcome @AndrewBoff as the newest member of our Alliance!
The other two (Susan Hall AM and Shaun Bailley AM) have yet to declare a position from what I can tell.
Analysis – a broad coalition for reform
The route to achieving Proportional Representation at Westminster is almost certainly through Labour. The idea that the Conservative Party leadership would support PR, led alone implement it, is beyond unlikely, whereas Labour could well support reform ahead of the next general election.
That all said, it is absolutely vital that the movement for PR includes a broad range of supporters including Conservatives. The UK’s journey to adopting Proportional Representation needs to involve all political parties. The fact that two of the four Conservative list London AMs support PR is not insignificant.
In Scotland, Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser, declared his support for a fairer electoral system at Holyrood last year, implicitly implying his support for reform at Westminster although that is not confirmed.
Like Fraser, London’s Emma Best and Andrew Boff recognise that without PR, they wouldn’t have their positions, meaning that without PR countless conservatives would be unrepresented in the London Assembly (and at Holyrood).
Furthermore, the support of Best and Boff is striking in the context of the government’s regressive Elections Bill which seeks to expand First Past the Post in England and Wales, crucially by replacing the Supplementary Vote for London mayoral elections.
The bulk of the efforts to achieve electoral reform should be on pushing Labour in the right direction and strengthening links with existing allies, as well as making the issue understood better by the wider public, but Conservative support is important too. When the day of change eventually comes, we should do our best to make sure as many people as possible are on board.
It is also worth highlighting that while the London Assembly delivers broadly proportional outcomes, it is not without its failings. Upgrade Holyrood supports reforming the Scottish Parliament which uses a similar system to elect MSPs. It is therefore right that while the London Assembly is fairer than Westminster’s use of First Past the Post, reform is needed ensure better representation.
Read more about the need to reform Scotland’s Additional Member System here.
The UK Government’s regressive Elections Bill returns to the House of Lords for its Second Reading (Wednesday 23 February 2022).
The Bill passed in the House of Commons on Monday 17 January (Report Stage and Third Reading) with very limited time dedicated to its debate. Unfortunately none of the amendments designed too remove its most oppressive aspects were successful due to the government having a majority of seats in the House of Commons.
With the Bill now in the House of Lords, there is an opportunity for government defeats to push back against the watering down of our democratic standards.
Reasons to oppose the Elections Bill
The Bill will weaken the UK’s already shaky democratic foundations. Instead of upgrading our political system by introducing Proportional Representation and modernising parliament, the Elections Bill is a direct attack on representative democracy.
It contains provisions to expand First Past the Post through abolishing the Supplementary Vote used for Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and mayoral elections. The current system is far from perfect but it provides a broader mandate to PCCs and mayors than the unrepresentative FPTP set-up currently used to elect Member of Parliament to the House of Commons.
The Elections Bill is also set to weaken the vital independence of the Electoral Commission. This is an affront to democracy which the Electoral Commission have firmly taken a stand against. In their letter to the government they say:
We therefore urge the Government to think again about these measures, to remove the provisions, and to work with the Commission and Speaker’s Committee to ensure that suitable accountability arrangements are in place to ensure confidence across the political spectrum. Strong accountability is essential for this, but so too is demonstrable independence. The Commission’s independent role in the electoral system must be clear for voters and campaigners to see, and preserved in electoral law.
Electoral Commission (21 February 2022)
Furthermore, the government’s bill will introduce voter identification (ID) requirements to address alleged voter fraud. Of course, electoral fraud is wrong and should be stamped out where present, however, the issue is barely a footnote on the pages of modern British politics, not to mention that trials in England have found voter ID to be highly ineffective. What’s more leading campaigns and organisations, such as the Electoral Reform Society and Hands off Our Vote have highlighted that voter ID is inherently exclusionary – it will have a disproportionate negative impact on minority communities, young people, older people and other demographics. Instead of tackling fraud, voter ID will suppress voters.
The Electoral Reform Society’s briefing on the Bill provides more details and further reasons to oppose the Bill here.
Ditch the undemocratic Elections Bill. Reform our antiquated electoral system. Don't level down our democracy. Make votes matter. Protest, march, resist! #TheTimeIsNowpic.twitter.com/xXRDjBMWpW
— Make Votes Matter North London (@MVMNorthLondon) February 5, 2022
What can you do? Taking action to defend democracy
The House of Lords has an opportunity to defeat the government but that is not without its challenges. Here’s what you can do.
Campaign groups from across the democracy sector are coming together to put pressure on the House of Lords to do the right thing.
Unlock Democracy’s action centre is a good starting point, full of calls to actions to campaign against the bill.
Make Votes Matter, who strongly opposed the expansion of First Past the Post, also provide some key actions to take.
The Elections Bill is a regressive piece of legislation that must be stopped. The government’s unrepresentative majority in the House of Commons seems unassailable but there is a real opportunity to make a difference in the Lords.
upgradeholyrood.com 